It's rewarding to see Florida's elected leaders show themselves as the total hypocrites they are.
My favorite part:
quote:Foley was part of the Republican leadership, holding the post of deputy whip. He also chaired the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus and was a member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.
What's even more funny is that Foley's name will remain on the ballot for the elections- if re-elected (I'd die laughing!), an as-of-yet-unnamed republican would hold the office in his stead rather than sede his seat to a Democrat.
Now the Republicans can be said to have a culture of corruption, lies and online pedophillia. Yet, their motto is still "Stay the Course".
Somehow, I doubt Foley will be required to register as an online sex offender...though anyone else surely would have to.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Except, when you read the e-mails, they are basically just weird, not sexually creepy. Or at least the one or two I read the other day were.
(In a summary I read somewhere.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There's stuff about him asking the page to get undressed, does he turn the page on, etc, that would land any citizen e-mailing a person he knows to be a minor in jail (or at the very least on some list of predators).
The fact that he oversees the comittee to protect children from online predators and prevent their exploitation is what makes this a big story. He's also given many speaches on morality and "family values".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Perhaps too summary, then.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Prahaps it will be one less Republican seat, is my hope.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The e-mails he sent to the kid who came forward were just creepy. Since then, they uncovered some other e-mails and IMs he exchanged with other underage pages asking them to undress and whether he makes them horny, etc.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Amazing is that no one is pressing Republican leadership for their role in allowing this to continue: they've said several times that last December Foley was told to "knock it off"- as though they did the right thing with such a harsh talking to...
quote:The lawmaker who oversees the page program, Rep. John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois, said that he learned about Foley's e-mails in late 2005 and "took immediate action to investigate the matter."
It's coming to light that the "investigation" was to take Foley at his word that it was over and not interview anyone.
Imagine for a moment the Republican's reaction if this were a Democrat caught doing this crap- they'd call for the removal of anyone that knew about it beforehand. Bet on it- they'd have their Christian Coallition pals handle the pressure and protest side of it, and FOX News would do the rest.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The kid was 16. Old enough to make his own decisions. As I recall, at least one set of parents was fine with it.
Posted by Idontlikeusernames (Member # 1925) on :
The Netherlands has judicially sanctioned the establishment of a Pedophile political party.
Besides from the age of the kid I'd say rep. Fowley is actually a homosexual man who just likes his partners as young as possible. In some European countries (such as Belgium and the Netherlands) the age of consent is indeed sixteen years of age while the Japanese constitution establishes the age of consent at thirteen years (although to be fair most prefectures have their own set of laws governing what they consider to be illegal sexual acts that effectively raise the age limit).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Amazing is that no one is pressing Republican leadership for their role in allowing this to continue..."
Except, maybe, that whole Ethics Committee investigation. The Democrats in Congres today may be mostly buffoons, but they aren't quite 100% incompetent.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, no one (reported) at the time of the posting, anyway. It's gaining a little headway now, but allready Hastert is rallying his spin forces to say that the poor Republians were just betrayed and duped by this crafty scoundrel- overlooking their complete lack of any investigation last December when they first learned about this.
There's also the matter of who leaked ABC the information- that party was also "in the know", and (supposedly) the FBI is now involved (though it seems to be mostly show from what I've read).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Much more fun today! Foley's lawyer announced a few "shocking" revalations to the assembled press today-
First, that Foley was (allegedly) molested himself by a member of the clergy as a boy. (but that he's not useing it as an excuse for his actions...really!)
Second is that he's gay (as though we could not figure that out, or that it in any way pertains to the age of his online pals).
Also, Foley's lawyer insists that Foley is not a pedophile, but if so, it's sure not for want of trying.
Lastly, that this poor victim is in booze-rehab and wont available for interviews or questioning "for at least a month and that his sudden relocation-to-private-rehab is (ha!) in no way a strategic move, but is a "life choice" (whatever that means). Amazing that he'll be unavailable untill after the elections.
On to the good stuff: Hastert is on the ropes- the highly conservative The Washington Times called for his resignation in today's edition. Hastert has claimed he "cant remember" if he heard about any explicit E-Mails before the story broke. Funny, you'd think that one would recall such a thing.
Republicans are crying that it's the Democrats that have waited to spring this story near election time (even as the Republicans tried so hard to cover it up) and that the Democrats should bear responsibiity for anyone abused by Foley while they waited to spring the story......yeah. No one's buying it though.
Awww yeah...this...this right here is why I love south Florida and it's inevitible scandals and backstabbing politics. I cant recall when I've laughed harder at the news than watching the republicans bounce between condemning Foley and trying to both support and condemn Hastert (just in case, you understand).
Strangely, some of the critics of Clinton's sexual encounter have yet to chime in against Foley- prahaps they've made a "life choice" not to judge anymore.
The press and the Republicans are circling like sharks smelling blood and the White House is...insane. Bush announced today that Democrats shouldn't be trusted to run Congress!!! Holy fuck- what planet is he calling from?
The FBI announced that it's investigation focuses on "verifying the validity of the E-Mails". Sounds like they're trying to disprove them instead of investigate them. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
He's not a pedophile any more than I am, or you are. The idea of prepubescent children does not arouse him.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, you know more than anyone how the LAW percieves such things- what sort of legal ramifications do you think he should recieve? After all, he passed some of that legislation himself.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
What exactly did he do wrong again? He talked dirty to some teens. OK, so it creeped a couple out, but as I remember, a couple weren't.
So...we charge him with what? Intent to corrupt a minor? Shit, we'd have to lock up almost every hetero male ever for THAT one.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...it's more the taking advantage of his position with Pages that is making this a big event (and his hypocritical public life as a congressman). There's the added fact that he knew the Pages he was dealing with were minors- breaking some laws there, certainly.
As to illegality, there's more to be said of severe ethics violations than anything that might lead to arrest...
quote:So...we charge him with what? Intent to corrupt a minor? Shit, we'd have to lock up almost every hetero male ever for THAT one.
Well, isn't that something they used against you? The online evidence of it anyway. You think he'll get the same probationary sanctions paced on him that you did? So far, anyway: you can bet the press is researching Foley a lot closer than any law-enforcment agency is.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I don't believe that Foley should necessarily receive any criminal punishment for his actions... however, he has been outed as a hypocritical asshole who shouldn't be trusted to govern a deserted island. And for all their loud proclamations about "protect the children" and "family is everything," the Republican leadership has been caught with their pants down and looking the other way. It doesn't surprise me in the least, but it's proving to more and more people how corrupt the Republican party is.
(I'm not saying the Democrats are necessarily better, morally... Clinton was a scumbag in his personal life, when it comes down to it. But hypocrisy is even worse.)
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
No, I had no intent charges.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Awesome...though I doubt even FOX would use something called "boingboing.com" as a source on...well,,,anything.
It would rock if they tried to spin it on Scientology, though.
Expect any photo Foley's ever taken to be scrutinized in the following weeks- you can bet there's one of him shaking the President's hand- I can see the blogs now: "Presidential wiretapping program nets sex scandal!"
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yeah, so, again, it's important to distinguish between pedophilia and what's going on here. The former specifically refers to sexul attraction to prepubescent or peripubescent children. It does NOT include adolescents.
Also, I agree that the importance of this is less about the man's individual actions than it is about the hypocrisy and corruption of the Republican party. Not to endorse his actions, of course.
-MMoM Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
quote:Yeah, so, again, it's important to distinguish between pedophilia and what's going on here. The former specifically refers to sexul attraction to prepubescent or peripubescent children. It does NOT include adolescents.
Before we can get down to making that distinction, we have to distinguish between the legal and pathological uses of the term, though.
I mean, "sodomy" has wildly differing definitions depending on where, when and in what language the word is used. Since "pedophilia" is a household word nowadays, its exact meaning shouldn't be taken as granted unless one is 100% sure of getting the context right. I doubt it's a legal term at all; the term we're looking for is probably " with minors", the expression in the brackets depending on whether the law was written in the 1600s or the 2000s.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I'm really having a problem with the notion that almost all heterosexual men would secretly like to corrupt minors.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
FWIW homosexual men likely feel the same way.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, he was the one specified heterosexuals.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I think the point is that, from a bilogical standpoint, there's nothing abnormal or unhealthy about being sexually attracted to individuals in their late teens. That's actually a reproductive peak in human beings. People used to mate/marry as teens quite regularly. So, legal issues aside, it's just the nature of the beast.
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah, but it's the hypocricy that makes this so good: Watch Foley shoot off his mouth. He makes some good points- about how "children are vulnerable to internet predators" and how the "predators are winning" the fight with law enforcment.
A good breakdown of the issue from start to present is found here. Posted by Idontlikeusernames (Member # 1925) on :
quote: He makes some good points- about how "children are vulnerable to internet predators" and how the "predators are winning" the fight with law enforcment.
The operative word here being "children". People in their late teens are not children, at least not biologically like MMoM already stated. Behaviorally, now that's a whole other can of worms and tends to vary greatly with the individual in question (and nature, nurture and culture all seem to play a role in this), though rep. Foley seems to have violated some US laws regarding the age of consent (and thus set a bad precedent since he's a lawmaker), like individual psychological maturity laws on age of consent can and do tend vary a great deal between cultures and countries. So other than rep. Foley setting a bad precedent as a lawmaker and not conducting himself according to the high standards that are supposed to go with the office (but then again I'm hard pressed to name any current politician who does) all he actually did, like Shik's already stated was talk a little dirty to these kids and I'm sure what rep. Foley said to them wasn't even half as dirty as some of the words being exchanged daily amongst teenagers themselves in high school and college corridors all over the word.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I do not know of a fancy word that encompasses "gross abuse of authority and position."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The real fun of the day (so far) stems from FOX News' O'Riley factor- seems they "accidently" used a graphic all during his program that displayed Foley's name and listed him as a DEMOCRAT. Every time they cut to a clip of Foley during the show, he was labled as a democrat. So...O'Riley went on and on about how disgiusted he was with Foley (without ever mentioning Foley's political affiliation) and punctuated his rant with clips of Foley listed as a Democrat.
Woah.
Keith Olbermann is having a field day with it on tonight's show- calling FOX News "outright liars" and you know what? He's right.
Amazing how twisted and dirty this is allready.
Some dumbass democrat is allready running a blatantly false ad stating that "Republicans admitted they knew about Foley molesting children"- none of which is true (that we know of, anyway). I never heard of this democrat before (she's not from Florida) but it's a pretty sleezy ad that conservatives (like Glen Beck and Rush Lmbaugh) are allready pointing to as "democrat dirty politics"....and (in this rare instance) they're right too.
Chris Matthews tonight interviewed a priest that knew Foley since his childhood and basicly said he (the priest, not Matthews) thinks the whole "moolested as a child" routine was made up by Foley's lawyer as an excuse- and that it casts a shadow over the literally dozens of church officials that taught and supported Foley during his long political career.
Then he interviewed one of Foley's political peers (republican) that said there were never any signs Foley had a drinking problem.
Awww yeah- the lies are falling apart fast now. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
"...ephebophilia, which is defined as a sexual attraction to post-pubescent adolescents and older teenagers." Primary or exclusive attraction to post-pubescent adolescents, actually.
Also:
"The DSM IV doesn't include ephebophilia as a diagnostic category."
This is due to the fact that there is little or no acceptance among mental health professionals that it constitutes a paraphilia.
(Agreed that the guy abused his position and acted in a wholly undignified and unprofessional manner.)
-MMoM Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I admit to parthenophilia, and no more.
What comment on the MSNBC coverage today?
--Jonah
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
(is that the one where architecture turns you on?)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I think that's an affinity for virgins, actually. Which is quite yucky, if you ask me. (No offense, Jonah.)
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
None taken. That's the fun of having six thousand million-plus people on the planet -- ya got that many different points-of-view.
I would like to specify, though -- female virgins.
--Jonah
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
These days, that pretty much equates to pedophilia, anyway.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Not always.
--Jonah
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, it's not as though I was making a sardonic generalization, or anything.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Heaven forfend.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
God, I love this place...
--Jonah
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Policemen, firemen, taxi drivers, it's all the same.
Now trash collectors, sultry but fickle. You almost have to know the routes and time tables nowadays. They're getting better, always ride in twos and threes.
Sometimes we wonder where all the dreams went, after leaving the Service. Then we remember, we're living it, baby!
Moral: "Internet predators", what a joke. P-u-s-s-i-e-s, is more close. ****! All hail Vachss!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Inari?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So...it's now looking like Republicans knew of "offensive E-Mails" from Foley as early as six years ago.
Speculation is wild about the elections and Hastert's speaking engagments are being hastily dropped.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yes, but if you use this as a reason to not vote Republican, then the North Koreans have already won!
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
The North Koreans have already won, period. This last week moreso.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Makes me wonder at how advasarial our relationship with NK really is.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)